Has marriage become for men only?

With strong, independent women starting to step out of the shadows casts by mysoganistic men, and only seeming to get real praise if doing it while 'looking hot' is marriage a dead duck? Women continually are seen as the lesser of the partnership in a patriarchal bondage. Why would we want this? Does anyone else think marriage is now left for the gay community and the old fashioned?

Well, I'm married and I'm pretty sure nobody thinks of me as the 'lesser of the partnership'. Marriage is certainly still valuable for women, if that's what you're asking, as it sorts out a great deal of financial and legal stuff that would otherwise have to be gone through separately.

I just sometimes feel that marriage, in its overall portrayal is outdated and sexist. Obviously individual circumstances mat be wonderful for the odd couple, but on the whole what does it bring? Are not the whole legal advantages just a way of keeping an archaic system that was primarily enslaving women?

The tax breaks being brought in by the conservatives for married couples actually mean more money for the man, don't they (given how families are often set up in terms of who earns what). There is no compulsion on him to share the additional money with his wife / children.

I was a sahm until recently, now I work very part time, so mostly a sahm.

Before we had dc, I worked full time earning a similar amount to my now dh.

So the dc were both born when we weren't married.. At some point I realised that the dc & I would be up shit creek if dp & I split. I had given up work , moved away from family etc.

So I told dp we were getting married. He initially said no, so I said I'd better find a full time job and put the dc in nursery. He changed his mind and we got married in July.

My point being - as a feminist, I wasn't prepared to have fewer rights following a split because I'd chosen to give up work for a. few years. Everything else is exactly the same, we were together 10 years before getting married.

I know a lot of men who dodge marriage like the plague (because of the potential for post-divorce alimony). If it's all been arranged for their benefit then the patriarchy is playing an unusually subtle game of double bluff. Now a certain style of feminist thought could argue that in a post-patriarchal utopia the contribution of SAHPs would always be rewarded and restricting that reward to married women is the bribe to get women into a situation that is otherwise to their detriment.

However, given that men are mostly the gatekeepers of marriage, it is mostly the more advantaged women who end up married. In practice I really don't think married women are oppressed by their partners and society more than single, co-habiting, or "baby mama" women (is there a PC term for that last situation?).

Caveat: this is the UK you're talking about, I'm sure there are places out there where marriage is indeed a systematic tool of repression.

Marriage, legally speaking, is really "for" the lower-income, primary carer, in the sense that it protects them from being screwed over in a divorce. This is the security people talk about. Historically and currently, lower-income primary carer is practically synonymous with woman, so marriage is "for" women.

If a man is going to out earn the woman over the life of the marriage, it is in the interests of the woman and for her (and dcs') protection to be married.

Whatever the patriarchal roots of marriage are, the legal system in the UK has evolved such that it gives women, particularly SAHMs, security in the event of divorce and death. It is not an instrument of oppression.

Marriage, legally speaking, is really "for" the lower-income, primary carer, in the sense that it protects them from being screwed over in a divorce. This is the security people talk about. Historically and currently, lower-income primary carer is practically synonymous with woman, so marriage is "for" women.

Given my wife always earned more money in her career than me, had we divorced years ago and I been granted primary custody of our kids (and given I was the primary carer for our children as they grew that would not be unreasonable to have been granted) then my ex-wife would have been mandated to pay me child support.

In fact the department of welfare here produced an educational video about dependant child payments many years ago where actors in it played out that exact scenario, thus inverting the societal 'classical thinking' female-male roles as part of the education process, which I thought was doubly good.

Marriage was invented by men for their benefit - a way of making sure they were able to own women for domestic, sexual and breeding purposes. Men-as-a-class then made it almost impossible for women to live outside of a marital relationship (forbidding them to work or own property) and then sold marriage to them as being 'to their advantage.'

That's how it was. Yes, of course there are plenty of marriages which are happy and (these days, in the developed world) a genuine partnership of equals, but there are plenty more where a woman is trapped by abuse and financial dependency.

Marriage has just changed, Childbirth and child raising has cast horrendously abusive values further to one side, Changed massively over time, ...have people stopped having children now because its outdated and pointless? no.

Women just tolerate less crap and expect more equal marriages. I am married and I don't stand for any shit, I haven't stepped into a time warp because I chose to get married.